get_pull_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about workspace resolution via "standard precedence," but that phrase is not explained. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the required-argument/workspace behavior is stated compactly. Each sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the phrase "full metadata" is not elaborated. The undefined "standard precedence" is also a gap that could leave an agent unsure how workspace is resolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It names repo and pr_id as required and mentions workspace resolution, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of repo, what "standard precedence" means, or how workspace behaves when omitted. This is insufficient given the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Returns full metadata for a single pull request." This clearly distinguishes it from list-level tools like list_pull_requests and from related sub-resource tools like get_pr_commits or get_pr_diff.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for fetching one pull request's metadata, and it mentions required arguments, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.